The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Great Burn

Posted on March 18, 2021 by

When Nicola Sturgeon is finally held to account for the charred, twisted and shattered ruins that she’s made of Scottish political and civic society in her desperate attempts to save her own neck, the complete discrediting of ostensible support organisations for victims of rape will be near the very top of the charge sheet.

But before we talk about that you really need to read this.

Because if you live in Scotland you can only rationally be one of two things at this moment in history: (a) terrified, or (b) an idiot.

The above link speaks for itself, so let’s move on to the Scottish Government’s latest intervention in the Salmond affair, which has once again been made in the name of its puppet entity Rape Crisis Scotland.

RCS is the nuclear option for the Scottish Government, the one that it deploys when it’s REALLY in trouble, because they believe the magical scareword “rape” makes it effectively immune from criticism.

But the statement above raises a lot more questions than it answers. It was issued when a third source (following on from the former SNP spin doctor Kevin Pringle and lawyer Duncan Hamilton QC) corroborated the claims made by Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond that “a government official” had disclosed the name of a complainer to Aberdein, and thereby to Salmond, in March 2018.

Absurdly we’re still not allowed to tell you who that government official was, because for some reason we’re not allowed to so much as publicly speculate about, the Crown Office is insanely, obsessively paranoid about people even saying their name.

Absolutely anyone in Scotland who has the slightest interest in knowing knows exactly who it is because the Crown Office’s own actions have made it abundantly, ridiculously obvious, but we still can’t actually say it here without being exposed to the same sort of threats issued against The Spectator.

Entirely unrelatedly, we know that passing on the name of a complainer would be a very serious matter because of the evidence submitted to the Holyrood inquiry by the First Minister’s chief of staff and close confidante Liz Lloyd, discussing the criminal leak of the story to the Daily Record in August 2018.

And this wholly incidental mention of Liz Lloyd conveniently brings us back to the statement released by an unknown complainer through Rape Crisis Scotland, because Liz Lloyd is the subject of it.

The statement itself is odd, in that we can find no sign of it on either the RCS website or their Twitter account. It seems to have been simply sent directly to newspapers with a covering note we haven’t seen that identifies its author as one of the complainers against Salmond, because at no point in the statement does the person actually identify themselves in such a way, yet every paper describes them so.

But we do know why the press would be able to take their word for it, because a very reliable source has told us today that Rape Crisis Scotland sent out two versions of the statement by email – one at 3.39pm yesterday and one at 4.19pm.

The statement was in the form of a Microsoft Word document attached to the email and entitled “Response1721.docx”, and the second email left recipients perplexed, because it said this about the file:

“If you have saved it, please destroy the previous version of the word document that you received and use this instead.”

This confused the people who’d had the emails, because the two Word documents were word-for-word identical. The reason for the second email only became clear when someone quite understandably examined the first version of the document in search of an explanation for the bizarre second email, and found that its metadata contained the name of the person who’d written it – ie one of the complainers.

In other words, Rape Crisis Scotland – and more specifically its Press and Campaigns Officer Brenna Jessie, in whose name the email went out – had just identified the complainer to everyone it had sent the email to. 

We’re sure, of course, that the Crown Office will not prosecute Ms Jessie for contempt of court in identifying her, because Ms Jessie is not a supporter of Alex Salmond. (In fact she’s the ex-partner of batshit-mad SNP MP Hannah Bardell, who this week called for a 6pm curfew on all men just in case any of them were rapists.)

So let’s pass over the matter casually like we were the Lord Advocate, and get on with analysing the statement.

“I am aware of comments from David Davis MP, in which he suggests the Chief of Staff to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, was aware of and “interfered” with complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018.

These allegations are fundamentally untrue and are being deliberately misrepresented.”

So straight away we have a lie, because David Davis didn’t suggest that at all. Judith Mackinnon, the Scottish Government’s own investigating officer, is the person who suggested it. David Davis merely read out a message from her:

It wasn’t Alex Salmond or any ally of his that was raising questions about improper behaviour from Liz Lloyd, it was a member of Leslie Evans’ investigating team.

What’s next?

“In January 2018 I was approached by Scottish Government HR regarding an investigation they were undertaking into a complaint about Alex Salmond’s behavior during his time as First Minister.

I had been named as someone who experienced such behaviour in statements obtained during the course of HR’s investigation.”

This is very peculiar. We know the harassment procedure wasn’t even published on the Scottish Government intranet until February 2018 (the Scottish Government having previously lied that it appeared in December 2017), so how could anyone be already fishing for more complainers? What “statements” could possibly have been “obtained” at that point, and from who?

We know that the two accusations which kickstarted the investigation weren’t filed until 16 January and 24 January – again before the procedure had been published – so that doesn’t leave a lot of time for the events described in the statement to have taken place, especially as a Scottish Government spokesman has already said that the “interference” by Lloyd complained of by Mackinnon was actually nothing to do with either of those complaints.

So exactly who approached the complainer fishing for complaints, and why? Who had cited her name if it wasn’t Ms A or Ms B, since they’re the only two people who ever actually made complaints under the Scottish Government’s rapidly-constructed harassment procedure (rather than the criminal investigation)?

So many questions. Here’s another:

“After discussion with HR, I decided I did not in any way wish to share with them my own personal experiences, however I also did not want to obstruct an investigation. I did not know if I was obliged to cooperate after being asked to.”

This is odd as we know from all the media headlines that this person DID subsequently make a complaint in the criminal trial, yet at this point they say they’d already “made it clear” that they weren’t interested in doing so:

“I decided to raise the matter with a trusted senior person in government, Liz Lloyd, to gain advice and an understanding of my obligations.

I was extremely conscious of the sensitivity of the investigation and I, therefore, did not tell Liz who the complaint was from, who it was about or the nature of the complaint.

I informed her I had been approached by HR in relation to a current investigation. I said I had been asked if I wanted to make a complaint and made it clear to her I did not want to.”

So who or what changed their mind at a later date?

“She offered to convey my concerns and what I wanted to happen to an appropriate senior civil servant, who was the most appropriate person to discuss the issue with. I agreed to this course of action.  This was not “interfering” but acting in line with my wishes.”

This is extremely murky. We’re being told that the complainer got Liz Lloyd to make it clear to an unknown “senior civil servant” that she did NOT wish to make a complaint – indeed we’ll hear in a moment that she was not merely a bit reluctant but extremely apprehensive about such a prospect.

So why on Earth would Judith Mackinnon consider Lloyd conveying that information to be “interference” – and why would she consider it to be “v bad” – if, as we’re told, it had absolutely nothing to do with the only investigations that were under way: those involving Ms A and Ms B? How can you interfere in something that doesn’t exist?

Especially after this:

“I then met with the senior civil servant and relayed my extreme apprehension about being involved in the investigation.

They offered me reassurance that should I decline to cooperate that I would not be impeding the investigation.”

So the senior civil servant clearly CAN’T have considered Lloyd’s intervention to amount to “interference” or “v bad” – they say it wouldn’t be impeding the investigation at all – so why would Judith Mackinnon think otherwise?

None of these questions will ever be answered, of course. The complainers, protected for life by an anonymity order despite their complaints having been found to be false, are allowed to issue endless statements, always through Rape Crisis Scotland and always dutifully reported by the Scottish media, effectively smearing Salmond as guilty despite the jury’s verdicts, with no accountability and no possibility of challenge.

It’s an outrageous state of affairs, but in Scotland it’s also the new normal.

Print Friendly

    206 to “The Great Burn”

    1. Tannadice Boy says:

      Stu
      I am neither terrified or an idiot. The pushback hasn’t happened yet. You wrote an article sometime ago. About the Unionist best options. One, two and three. But we missed a fourth. The ultimate destruction of our Institutions. I never saw that coming.

    2. TheSNPLeftMe says:

      Good detailed research Rev.
      Well done!

      It would normally give someone cause to consider their position, but not in the SNP Universe.

    3. Mighty S says:

      You make such journalism look easy. I mean, it must be hard, cos nobody in the MSM are able to to it…

      In other theories: I’m starting to think that the Tories and the MSM will NOT ‘go in hard’ on the run up to HR2021.

      I think they’ve recognised NS and this cowardly version of the SNP as the ones to maintain the Union. So, I’m predicting a passing reference to the Fabiani Inquiry when it comes back as ‘no one is at fault’. The same with the Hamilton Inquiry. It’ll all quietly be ignored and Sturgeon will glide seamlessly into HR2021.

    4. Daisy Walker says:

      Woman A and B (civil complaints) did not make a formal notification of their ‘concerns’ to HR until 29th November 2017.

      These then became reported as formal ‘complaints’ by them on 16th and 24th Jan 2018.

      While the woman who issued her stmt through RCS is entitled to speak of her experience with Liz Lloyd, she cannot, or should not have any knowledge (detailed or otherwise) of who dealt with the other complainers – which could well have been Liz Lloyd on some level.

      For this reason she is not in a position to issue a blanket defence of LL – she is not the master of all the facts – and should not have been afforded this platform by a registered Charity, seeking in effect to interfere in a Political matter.

    5. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I am neither terrified or an idiot.”

      I’m afraid those are the only choices.

    6. Meg says:

      I know i am in the terrified category (I’m also angry to be honest)

    7. Bob Mack says:

      I hear the sound of someone trying to dig an escape tunnel.

      Sadly it may prove a tomb.

      Dangerfield has done a similar and excellent analysis of this very thing on his latest blog.

    8. Cath says:

      I really hope your last paragraph isn’t true, Rev. Justice and protection for everyone in this country relies on it not being true and there being some legal or parliamentary way to challenge and get at least some of these plotters named.

      In other theories: I’m starting to think that the Tories and the MSM will NOT ‘go in hard’ on the run up to HR2021.

      The problem the unionists have is they also adore the Salmond stuff and were hoping he went to jail just as much as Sturgeon clearly was. The last thing they want to do is help clear his name. So they’re stuck in trying to bash Sturgeon and the SNP on narrow, technical grounds while also going along with her own ‘the poor women’ narrative, because if they went for the jugular with the real issues, they’d be helping Salmond. They won’t do that. They much prefer a damaged Sturgeon who they hold vast amounts over now.

    9. Hamish Kirk says:

      Can I be BOTH terrified and an idiot ? is that choice open ?

    10. BoredHousewife says:

      Jeez, could the plot get any thicker?

    11. Tannadice Boy says:

      Stu
      You have done a great job over the last ten years or so. A beacon for Independence in the way that Gordon Wilson was. But it is now we need people to stand up. I am not terrified. I only have 3 University degrees in 3 different disciplines so I am not an idiot. Neither are my children who are Scotland. Want to know what they are doing?
      I am staying to face the onslaught.

    12. PhilM says:

      Jeez, could the people involved BE any thicker?!!

    13. Alex says:

      They’re going to need a much bigger shovel for that hole they’re digging.

    14. Bob Mack says:

      @Tannadice Boy,

      You must realise what the power of government allied to lawmakers and law enforcement can do. We have just witnessed it with Alex, a man with a lot of knowledge as well.

      It is an unequal contest in every way. I think should it be turned on ordinary people it would be time to weigh up our options. But for now I can understand why we are looking down the muzzle of a loaded gun, and we should be afraid of that.

    15. Wee Willie says:

      The MSM in Scotland are beyond shameful.

    16. shiregirl says:

      I’m terrified.

      What next, I wonder. For the first time ever, I think Scotland isn’t a good place to be a woman. To think I actually contributed to the SNP. I am beyond sick. And I am very, very angry.

    17. Garrion says:

      At this point I’d go for either independence OR a country where amateur hour howling fuckwittery like this is not possible on pain of being nationally laughed onto a departing plane.

      Sigh.

    18. TOMMY SHERIDAN says:

      This detailed contribution and Gordon Dangerfield’s https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/03/18/an-urgent-question/ are truly frightening as they illustrate just how willing and brazenly those in positions of power and influence at the very summit of the Scottish Government are prepared to both lie and encourage others to do so on their behalf. Continuing to seek the truth and expose that truth in relation to the illegal, unfair and biased investigation into Alex Salmond must continue despite the intimidation and harassment of the truth seekers.

    19. Mist001 says:

      “Because if you live in Scotland you can only rationally be one of two things at this moment in history: (a) terrified, or (b) an idiot.”

      This is wrong. There should be a (c) angry.

      Which I am. Furious even.

    20. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Jesus Christ. I can’t even keep up with this tragic, disgusting madness anymore. There are no more lies and plates to spin to try to save your skin, Ms. Sturgeon. They have all long since smashed on the floor, leaving the Scottish population with an unsightly, depressing, embarrassing, extremely costly mess to clean up.

      Thanks a lot.

    21. Cath says:

      For the first time ever, I think Scotland isn’t a good place to be a woman.

      It’s ironic, isn’t it? We’re run mostly by women now and it’s never felt like a more misogynistic, scary place for women. I’d trust Alex Salmond as a friend, or someone to go for a drink with, a million times more than I’d Nicola Sturgeon. I’ve campaigned under them both as leaders so I know which one created a safer and vastly more fun space for debate and campaigning.

    22. Roddy Macdonald says:

      This anonymous intervention yesterday struck me as one of the most bizarre yet. As well as the points you’ve raised there is the fact that the FM moved heaven and earth to have the civil service concoct a bespoke, rushed, unlawful and biased procedure solely for investigation of complaints against former ministers (now blindingly obviously a former minister) conveniently concurrently while Ms A and Ms B’s “concerns” were matured into complaints which totally excluded the FM from having a role or a need to be informed. If the FM was so desperate to distance herself from the procedure, WTF is her CoS doing intervening on behalf of a trawled potential complainer?

      I’ve no idea what is in the Code of Conduct for SpAds, but I’d be extremely surprised if having any role whatsoever other than complainer or witness in internal Civil Service disciplinary procedures is permitted. Especially if one’s boss has made it abundantly clear she doesn’t want it touched with a bargepole and has since vaunted her non-intervention as a defence in parliament.

      The desperation is showing. There was enough in David Davis’ speech to keep those with an interest in this story occupied for a week. The FM’s ‘denials’ are proving far more fruitful than any other source in this inquiry! At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Lord Advocate, I think I can confidently identify the author of yesterday’s intervention through the FM’s PR agency RCS as Ms JCB. I think I feel a wee malt coming on, perchance a Speyside?

    23. ALANM says:

      Sturgeon is currently under the microscope and rightly so but I’m more concerned about the fact that so many highly paid civil servants, elected representatives and journalists have chosen to toe the party line and say nothing for fear of rocking the boat.

      Scotland under Sturgeon has just joined Iran and North Korea on the list of countries which I’ve got not intention or desire to visit anytime soon. And that’s a great shame because it happens to be the country where I was born and raised.

    24. N MacMillan says:

      Cath at 6.07pm- you have it just about right I think! Sadly!

    25. PaulaJ says:

      “The MSM in Scotland are beyond shameful.”

      But, ‘bought and paid for’, so quite content.

    26. AwakeNotWoke says:

      Scotland is fucked while these scumbags are in charge.
      And I’m scared. Anyone who isn’t must either be in the cabal or have a carer.

    27. Morag MacMillan says:

      I can honestly say that I have never felt so totally screwed over in my life . All those marches all that loyalty and we have been robbed of our rights to run ourselves , the dream may never die but the lead players have turned it into a nightmare of gigantic depressing proportions . Unforgivable.

    28. Cath says:

      I’ve no idea what is in the Code of Conduct for SpAds

      It can be found here:

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832599/201612_Code_of_Conduct_for_Special_Advisers.pdf

      It’s an interesting read, given what actually seems to happen.

    29. John Martini says:

      I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it amy more’.

    30. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “So let’s pass over the matter casually like we were the Lord Advocate”

      Comedy Gold!

      If this was a Westminster scandal I suspect the LA would have been found dead with an orange in his mooth wearing womens underwear in a dodgy strangle wank ‘accident’ by now.

      The Scottish Government really are amateurs at this stuff, aren’t they?

    31. Prasad says:

      Deliberately or not they are using the trans-extremist strategy to gaslight people; ‘this can’t be happening, it can’t be this bat-shit crazy.’

      Someone unknown met Lloyd, the second most important person in Scotland, without Lloyd knowing, why or who or anything about anything and 3 years later it definitely wasn’t about the shit you think it is. So there! And AS must have done something because we are RCS.

    32. Cenchos says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker 6:38 pm

      “If this was a Westminster scandal I suspect the LA would have been found dead with an orange in his mooth wearing womens underwear in a dodgy strangle wank ‘accident’ by now.’

      An orange lodged in his mouth, more like.

    33. unsigned says:

      Good article – keep it up. Truth won’t out if you select few don’t keep going.

    34. 100%Yes says:

      You’d think Sturgeon was given the UK a solid reason for dissolving Holyrood and Westminster taking back control of Scotland. I think running about in that helicopter has went to her head.

    35. Roddy Macdonald says:

      Thanks for that, Cath. Well, it appears Ms JCB has dropped the FM’s CoS well and truly in it, in contravention of Para 6 anyway.

      6. In order to enable special advisers to work effectively, departments should allocate civil servants to provide support of a non-political nature. Special advisers are able to give direction to such civil servants in relation to their day-to-day work for them, and their views should be sought as an input to performance appraisals on the basis that these are written by other civil servants. However, special advisers should not be involved in the line management of civil servants or in matters affecting a civil servant’s career such as recruitment, promotion, reward and discipline, or have access to personnel files of civil servants.

    36. Shocked says:

      Aye so Tommy, you’ll be seeking the truth by voting for Nicola Sturgeon and telling others to do the same….

    37. Red says:

      Rape Crisis Scotland – and more specifically its Press and Campaigns Officer Brenna Jessie, in whose name the email went out – had just identified the complainer to everyone it had sent the email to.

      Had a wee look at Brenna’s Twitter. This is her pinned tweet:

      Brenna
      @brennajessie_
      ·
      27 May 2020
      It is categorically not true that a not guilty verdict in sexual offences cases means that complainers (legal term) were lying and it is outright dangerous to suggest this.

      I couldn’t find any tweet where she pointed out how dangerous it is to imply that people who’ve been found not guilty by a court of law are actually somehow guilty after all.

      Weird, eh? You might think an organisation called Rape Crisis would be – relieved? – to find out a rape didn’t actually happen. But no.

    38. gordoz says:

      Tell me this has not been lifted from Monty Pythons Holy Grail ?
      Some of it reads very like ‘The knights who say Ni !’

      FFS ?? This is a bonkers time ….

    39. Mia says:

      There are more questions though.

      This person seems to say that a senior member of HR contacted them because they knew they had been involved in an incident in the past and were offering them the opportunity to put a complaint. This sounds dodgy.

      Besides sounding like unjustified encouragement to me and having a senior person from HR contacting you directly out of the blue coming across as intimidating, the other issue I have with this is confidentiality.

      I mean, where on earth did the senior HR member of staff found out about the possible situation this person may or may not been involved in, in the past?

      Did they hear it from the grapevine? And they thought it was appropriate to approach an individual that did not approach previously the HR and disclosed details of the event, out of the blue and without consent?
      Did this person still worked in the civil service?
      Because if they didn’t, what right has any HR person to contact them cold turkey and asking them to put a complaint?
      And if they still worked in the civil service, what a normally functioning HR usually does is wait for the person to actually approach them not the other way round on the basis of an unproven rumour. The person may want to keep quiet about it and not give it publicity and it is their right. I mean it is not like it is the police contacting this person as part of an ongoing official investigation. Are we to understand the civil service senior HR person has so little to do that routinely engages in trawling through the databases looking for historical complaints that can be used to fish for people to put complaints again under a new procedure, or do they get their intel from gossip they hear through the grapevine?

      This comes across as incredibly dodgy to me and I am not really sure this is all kosher with the laws regarding protection of personal information. You cannot just keep the details of an ex employee permanently in your databases so you can contact them whenever you feel like. It also sounds like an active enterprise of fishing was going on here.

      The other thing that is very odd here is that this person claims to have thought that her not putting the complaint could compromise the investigation. Where did they get this idea from? Is this what she was told by the HR person to pressurise them into put the complaint? Doesn’t it sound like psychologically blackmailing the person into submission? Is this legal? What authority has a HR person approaching cold turkey an employee and pressurising them into putting a complaint? Isn’t this a case of instant dismissal?

      I thought the fishing expedition had only happened via the SNP executive. Does this mean there was a parallel fishing expedition from the guts of the Scottish government civil service? Because from that statement released via RCS it very much looks that way, or am I misreading something?

      Now, if this person ended up putting the complaint for the criminal trial but not the complaints procedure, does this mean that civil servants were already fishing for potential complainers for the criminal case around February 2018, even before Mr Salmond had been informed of the result or even before there was knowledge of a judicial review?

      Did they know at that time that a criminal case was in the cards?

      mmm. This is beginning to look more and more like a very carefully thought out and complex plan to keep Mr Salmond busy and out of politics for a good number of years.

    40. Cath says:

      The timing of all the Rape Crisis Scotland driven – along with the Crown Office, SG etc – change to removing juries from rape cases as they so often get it wrong is also deeply troubling, coming on the same evening as the Panorama programme. It’s basically more smearing but in a more subtle way: “obviously we’re not going to tell you which case we’re talking about but we all know and the jury got it totally wrong”. This is all coming from those who attempted a stitch up of an innocent man, who wasn’t even accused of rape (the attempted rape was easily proved not to have happened as the woman wasn’t there).

      This is nothing to do with actual rape victims, who they don’t appear to care about at all: if they did, they wouldn’t be wasting vast resources on prosecuting on politically inconvenient man for hair pinging while genuine rapists get away with it all the time.

    41. Tannadice Boy says:

      Bob Mack 6:18pm
      Absolutely the power of the State. If I tell you I am in my Sixties and should have died when I was 18 you will understand why I am not terrified now. I am not terrified period. I hope that is clear. It’s going to take a lot of money to ship my entire family out. But they are Scotland not Nickla. So we are staying.

    42. Chris Godwin says:

      Gobsmacked by your stamina – and your laserlike (ahem, bulldog-like?) forensic acuity, Stu! Bravo! Another contrib on its way!

    43. Captain Yossarian says:

      @JWT – “So let’s pass over the matter casually like we were the Lord Advocate” – I noticed that myself sir.

      Anyway, it turns-out the same Lord Advocate has written to Guido Fawks and The Spectator demanding that they ‘redact and withdraw’. Both have told him to feck-off.

      I’d say the untidy old fool would be better off retiring to an island somewhere with few people but lots of whisky. Islay or Jura. That would be fine.

    44. President Xiden says:

      The great embarrassment continues.

    45. Prasad says:

      Are we allowed to name the Betty? It is out.
      How desperate can that woman get?

    46. Sam says:

      Does anyone fancy lodging complaints with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator about a charity being used for political means and/or the Commissioner
      for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland for a potential breach of the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016?

    47. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “This is wrong. There should be a (c) angry.”

      Aye but you don’t live in Scotland, do you, “Play Misty for me”?

    48. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Open Goal Missed there!

      I bow to your humor @Cenchos says at 6:44 pm

      🙂

    49. colin lees says:

      i take my hat off to you rev campbell.for a man of the cloth your write ups are quite riveting.as has been said, when you start lying on such a scale ,it gets more & more difficult to keep it all together,especially when there are so many players.i just hope that this is not allowed to vannish with time.if bbc panorama wants to make a programe,here it is.

    50. Beaker says:

      @gordoz says:
      18 March, 2021 at 6:51 pm
      “FFS ?? This is a bonkers time ….”

      It’s the equivalent of the wee scrawny guy walking into the wrong pub just after his team has won 5-0.

    51. MikeD says:

      First Minister Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament, concludes Holyrood harassment committee.

      Holyrood cttee concludes Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence re non-intervention in Salmond investigation is “an inaccurate account of what happened and she has misled the committee on this matter.”
      This is a potential breach of the ministerial code”

      Holyrood harassment committee concludes that First Minister misled committee, & therefore Parliament, but doesn’t say she did it “knowingly”. Resignation is expected of ministers who “knowingly mislead” parliament.

      -From Sky’s James Matthews.

    52. Mia says:

      Re my own comment above

      Sorry, my brain cells cannot stop firing.

      Might have the HR senior staff told this person that their not putting a complaint could compromise the case because of the Moorove thingy (if they did not manage to put sufficient complaints together, even if silly it would not hold water)?

      Could they thereofore already be pursuing the Moorove thingy at this time, so early on in the game?

      Was the police investigating already at this point or not yet?

      Mr Davies mentioned about the SNP executive potentially looking for complainants after January 2019. But this is before even the judicial review.

      Am I reading far too much into this and getting too overexcited or has this woman, accidentally, in their rush to protect [redacted]’s arse, potentially thrown us a ginormous clue on the political conspiracy against Mr Salmond?

    53. Mike says:

      Ironically, Sturgeon has taken a leaf out of Trump’s book and dismisses any allegations against her as ‘fake news’. Of course she doesn’t use that exact phrase but the underlying principle is the same: would you really believe a Tory? Would you trust anything Westminster says? Would guy really believe an old sleaze ball like Salmond.

      It’s nasty but very effective as we saw with Trump and is allowed to happen when people play Tribal politics.

    54. Lost says:

      Your right, this statement just opens a can of worms.

      ‘In January 2018 I was approached by Scottish Government HR.’
      ‘I had been named as someone…’

      So they HAD been fishing for names.

      The Scottish Government HR department approached someone who’s name was given on hearsay.

      ‘She offered to convey my concerns and what I wanted to happen to an appropriate senior civil servant…’

      This is interfering. The offering of speaking to someone else is interfering. It should have been left to the HR department to deal with this not Liz Lloyd and the ‘other senior civil servant’ to decide how to act.

      This statement just confirms there was too many people involved in this and gives support to Judith McKinnon and Barbara Alison email.

    55. Sylvia says:

      So….Holyrood harassment committee will publish full report in coming days. Conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon MISLED committee, & therefore Parliament, reached by majority vote
      @SkyNews

      https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1372625238320685062

    56. Black Joan says:

      Is the tall tale told by this “complainant” related to the story that McCann knew about and decided to keep in his secret drawer to be “deployed” later if necessary? Could he be characterised as “HR”? Perhaps there are some text messages somewhere that could clarify this.

      It’s all so hideously confusing — by design, of course — so easy for the NS fan club and hard of thinking to ignore.

      Thank you again, Rev, for keeping on keeping on. Scotland is indeed becoming terrifying, and doing so at exactly the time when the WM fascist regime makes escape to England pretty unattractive too.

    57. Astonished says:

      Dodgier and dodgier. Who will crack first ?

      After all the smears and questioning of the court’s decisions (obviously not being a judge ; I can’t tell the difference between publicly and persistently questioning a court’s decision and contempt of court. I hope some judge will explain this to me and the rest of the public ). The judge ( lady dorrian – I think) who granted the hiding of the alphabetties must be worrying about that decision.

      I wonder why the judge decided to maintain their anonymity ? And some of them (possibly all) consider that this anonymity gives them carte blanche to continue to smear Mr Salmond and question the court’s decision. A win-win for the alphabetties … so far.

      Not long now – plod is getting shamed into doing something. And when it hits the fan you really, really don’t want to be seen as aiding the cover-up (Are you reading this you cowardly silent SNP MSPs and MPs ?).

      P.S. Where is the £600,000 ? Mike Russell ? Police Scotland ?

    58. macnakamura says:

      It seems to me that if RCS is going to issue statements on behalf of a complainer/complainant then, at the very least, we should be given the trial alphabet identity of said complainant.

      Her anonymity can be preserved but one may have some context within which to judge the veracity of RCS statement.

    59. Betsy says:

      Tenner says Sturgeon’s response to the harassment committees findings will be to concede she misled them but claim it was an error due to her genuine (no laughing at the back) desire to protect the Alphabites and that she will not resign, instead she will be judged the the people in May.

    60. Steve ashton says:

      But in the spectator case seeking clarity over what they could publish…. I thought the crown office had failed to persuade the judge (hadn’t even tried to persuade the judge?) that anything in the spectator articles as then published was in any way contemptuous of court?? WTAF are those arseholes doing? Could it be a key MI5 “asset” is at risk of being exposed? I need to get a more hard-wearing tinfoil hat.

    61. Ruby says:

      “Play Misty for me”
      OMG That’s what you call harassment!

      Fatal Attraction is another one.

      These films don’t show women in a very good light.
      They’ll probably be banned in Scotland.

    62. crazycat says:

      The statement by the spokesperson (https://archive.is/smLIN) is very carefully worded –

      the comment read out by Mr Davis…does not related to Ms A or MsB

      But in a comment on his own blogpost today (https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/03/18/an-urgent-question/#comment-2259), Gordon Dangerfield refers to a Ms C, whose existence I had forgotten or never really registered:

      …Another possibility is the third woman in the SG investigation who gave a statement and was shown the draft procedure but did not proceed to a formal complaint, leaving Ms A and Ms B only. Call her Ms C.

      Ms C can’t be the RCS woman whom I’ve called Ms X here because Ms X says she was approached in January 2018 whereas Ms C had already given her statement and been shown the draft procedure well before then.

      As GD says, Ms C is not Ms X, but could Ms C have been the trigger for the approach to Ms X? That would not render the spokesperson’s comment untrue.

      Even though Ms C did not formally complain either, she does seem to have provided “statement[s] in the course of HR’s investigation”. Maybe this referred to Ms X.

    63. lumilumi says:

      So, just more obfuscation, contradiction, smoke and mirrors, tangled webs, the hallmarks of the Sturgeon adminstration, in the hope that no-one will have the will, strength and tenacity to cut through it all. Also, hope to run down the clock.

      Thank gods for Rev Stu! And a couple of others, including Gordon Dangerfield and Craig Murray!

      Cath says:
      18 March, 2021 at 6:53 pm

      This is nothing to do with actual rape victims, who they don’t appear to care about at all: if they did, they wouldn’t be wasting vast resources on prosecuting on politically inconvenient man for hair pinging while genuine rapists get away with it all the time.

      This.

      Rape Crisis Scotland has now become fully politicized and their priority is not ordinary Scottish women who are victims of ACTUAL rape. Oh no, protecting the careers of well-off middle-class women comes first.

      Rape Crisis Scotland are a travesty. They are, by their actions and press statements, now a force AGAINST women in Scotland who are ACTUALLY raped to be believed.

      As a woman, I’m raging mad!

    64. Lollysmum says:

      I’m with you Cath. I’d always planned to move to Scotland on retirement because I couldn’t abide the thought of having to remain in England.

      Scotland was entirely the opposite, women were valued & appeared to be much safer & the stats confirmed the same. It was safe to walk the streets at night in Edinburgh to go to the theatre or to catch a bus home to my village 20 miles away. I’ve even done the same when I’ve had one too many & not had a single thought that I was unsafe. But on the other hand I wouldn’t have done either in England 10 years ago, let alone now.

      Now I fear the Scottish government & that the Hate Crime Bill & GRA is the practice run in Scotland before its introduced down south by WM just as they did with the Poll Tax. Is this our destiny-to be the training ground for every fascist policy going? I have no trust in Scot Gov any more & am embarrassed to have defended them to the hilt when I really had no idea how bad the truth was.

      I never would have thought that the Scottish government could become so authoritarian & so corrupt in such a short space of time. Good actors aren’t they?

      I’ve no idea what others will do but I plan to spoil my constituency vote & go ISP for 2nd vote. At the very least that party has been standing up for women whilst the SNP has done it’s damndest to knock us down. I’m not going to forgive or forget that.

      I’m still a member but only just-I’d like to be part of the clean up but not sure if that’s ever going to be possible.

    65. Beaker says:

      James Matthews on Sky News twitter. Looks like someone needs to resign.

      https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1372623487995670532

      (apologies if I’ve screwed up the link… I’m having one of these days)

    66. Mountain shadow says:

      Goodbye Nicola!

    67. Cath says:

      instead she will be judged the the people in May.

      The problem for Sturgeon and her acolytes with this is you can’t have it both ways. May can’t be both “a vote to judge what we think of Sturgeon’s behaviour” AND “a vote that’s entirely about independence and if yous don’t vote SNP you’re voting against independence”. It’s one or the other. The wider SNP would be very wise to consider which they want to put to the electorate, *especially* to those in the independence movement.

    68. Graham says:

      What I cannot fathom is why James Wolffe continues to cover up for Sturgeon’s lies and the equally easy to prove lies from her closest lady friends, Lloyd & Mackinnon.

      It was Wolffe’s office that demanded full transparency during the Judicial Review & it was Sturgeon’s office that, according to her own, clearly honourable council, failed to provide it, despite repeated warnings that their defense would collapse, if it continued to redact documents.

      Sturgeon is lying for obvious reasons; to keep her name clean & hang on to power as First Minister so that she can continue to develop & execute her perverse, Nanny Superior ideology.

      But there’s no fundamental reason I can determine for Wolffe to embroil himself with her inner circle of incompetent, bungling fanatics & completely trash his already damaged reputation.

      There are only two explanations surely; he’s just an egotistical, imperious supervisor, who in unable to prevent his emotions get the better of him or there’s some other dynamic relationship between his office & Sturgeon’s office that has yet to be revealed.

      You might therefore wonder, which sin might the next revelatory scandal involve?

    69. laukat says:

      The problem with the comittee finding her guilty of a breach isn’t terminal in itself however you can bet they have an idea what Hamilton’s report will say and don’t want to look daft.

      The committee’s report, I think, will be break the dam. Others around her will now start to wonder if standing by her is in their interests.

      On the plus side if she resigns in the next few days and is replaced by someone untainted by this affair (say Keith Brown on a interim basis) it may be enough to get some votes back. Particularly if that person is astute enough to make peace with Salmond.

    70. Gregor says:

      “Corruption:

      Corruption is a disease, a cancer that eats into the cultural, political and economic fabric of society, and destroys the functioning of vital organs. It undermines good government, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to the misallocation of resources, harms the private sector and private sector development and particularly hurts the poor…

      The state is always involved:

      The decisive role of the state is also reflected in most definitions of corruption. Corruption is conventionally understood, and referred to, as the private wealth-seeking behaviour of someone who represents the state and the public authority, or as the misuse of public goods by public officials for private ends. The working definition of the World Bank is that corruption is the abuse of public power for private benefit.

      Corruption is a particular (and, one could say, perverted) state-society relation. On the one side is the state, that is the civil servants, functionaries, bureaucrats and politicians, anyone who holds a position of authority to allocate rights over (scarce) public resources in the name of the state or the government. Corruption is when these individuals are misusing the public power they are bestowed with for private benefit.

      The involvement of state officials in corruption is also emphasised in an alternative definition, where corruption is seen as “a form of secret social exchange through which those in power (political or administrative) take personal advantage, of one type or another, of the influence they exercise in virtue of their mandate or their function..”

      Political corruption and bureaucratic corruption:

      In a more strict definition, political corruption involves political decision-makers. Political or grand corruption takes place at the high levels of the political system. It is when the politicians and state agents, who are entitled to make and enforce the laws in the name of the people, are themselves corrupt.

      Political corruption is when political decision-makers use the political power they are armed with, to sustain their power, status and wealth. Thus, political corruption can be distinguished from bureaucratic or petty corruption, which is corruption in the public administration, at the implementation end of politics. Even when the distinction between political and bureaucratic corruption is rather ambiguous as it depends on the separation of politics from administration (which is unclear in most political systems), the distinction is important in analytical and in practical terms. Political corruption occurs at the top level of the state, and it has political repercussions.

      Political corruption not only leads to the misallocation of resources, but it also affects the manner in which decisions are made. Political corruption is the manipulation of the political institutions and the rules of procedure, and therefore it influences the institutions of government and the political system, and it frequently leads to institutional decay. Political corruption is therefore something more than a deviation from formal and written legal norms, from professional codes of ethics and court rulings. Political corruption is when laws and regulations are more or less systematically abused by the rulers, side-stepped, ignored, or even tailored to fit their interests.

      Political corruption is a deviation from the rational-legal values and principles of the modern state, and the basic problem is the weak accountability between the governors and the governed. In particular in authoritarian countries…”

      https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/1040-political-coiTuption.pdf

    71. Craig P says:

      That doesn’t terrify me. Tell you what does though: proposals to introduce ‘world-leading human rights legislation’

      https://www.gov.scot/news/new-human-rights-bill/

      at the same, co-incidental time as a proposal to end trial by jury in certain cases:

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56435743

      With the people in charge who brought you Named Person, OBFA, Hate Crime laws, what could possibly go wrong?

    72. solarflare says:

      If the toothless committee with the SNP+(ex)Green notional majority that can only consider some of the evidence and which has been frustrated and obfuscated against at every turn thinks she misled the committee, no matter how carefully they couch that…she must be a goner, surely?

    73. Al says:

      Mia Says: ar 6:51PM
      “normally functioning HR ” only thing I disagree with as HR Departments (in the main)are full of disfunctional people who, in the event of a complaint fail to impliment company procedure. Been there, done that, been forced out a job for a valid complaint on a psychopath boss.
      Bitter, who me ?

    74. Betsy says:

      Cath,
      I agree completely and if Sturgeon had any astute and honest colleagues at the top of the party, some difficult conversations would be taking place just now. However I suspect her coterie over promoted arse lickers will only act to force her out once they see a worrying drop in the polls. I can’t see her going of her own accord unfortunately.

    75. Willie says:

      I can’t speak for anyone else but charities like the Rape Crisis Centre comes across as a front for a political campaign organisation.

      Such behaviour undermines what its name suggests it is funded to do

      And that is desperate for woman who do need support.

    76. it'scominyet says:

      I so enjoyed these belters of paragraph links that I’ve sent you some sweetie money.

    77. Captain Yossarian says:

      I think Westminster will get involved now. The dam is bursting. James Wolffe will listen to the Rangers game and polish-off a half bottle of Bells. He fecked the morra.

    78. Ruby says:

      https://archive.is/IkxOA

      Sky News
      Sturgeon ‘misled parliament’ over role in Salmond investigation, committee finds

    79. John Martini says:

      Up to the people of scotland now. Have faith in humanity.

      Sturgeon must go

    80. Astonished says:

      laukat :

      I agree . Significant ground could be made by making peace with the wronged party (Mr Salmond).
      And suspending kirsten oswald and humza yusuf for breaking party rules (pending investigation).
      And removing the BAME candidates from the top of the list ( they should remain on the list in the position they were voted in at ).
      And expelling the wokeratti .
      And dropping the genderwoowoo nonsense.
      And stopping the hate crime bill (and apologising for it).
      And recognizing a SNP 1+2 vote doesn’t always make electoral sense.

      Heads need to roll : to protect women ; to protect children ; to protect vulnerable teenagers and to further the cause of independence.

      Let’s see who starts jumping ship.

    81. cynicalHighlander says:

      I believe Panorama have a love in with Nicola at 8pm tonight!

    82. bipod says:

      O/T

      Well well it looks like the great white elephant NHS Louisa Jordan is shutting down at the end of March so much for all the great “training” they did there. Clearly the situation with the NHS isn’t as dire as they say it is. The sad truth about NHS Louisa Jordan is that it has been dead quiet since the day it opened even at the peak of the so called epidemic.

    83. Not confused says:

      The most unlikely part in the anonymous woman’s statement, for me, is the suggestion that following the meeting with HR she was left under the impression that she might HAVE TO submit her own experiences to any investigation. It is unbelievable to me that any HR department wouldn’t know the guidance around this and that they wouldn’t have clearly told her she was under NO obligation to share anything with anyone.

      If she did feel the need for clarity on that following their meeting then we can only conclude that the HR department was acting completely against all our legislation around this area. That they purposely made it seem to her that she may be obliged to share information. The only alternative conclusion is that they are absolutely incompetent and not fit for purpose. I can’t believe that a government HR department could be that incompetent and lacking in basic HR knowledge.

      We teach boys and girls in school that whilst we encourage them to report any abuse that they are under no legal obligation to do so and no one can force them to do so.

      But we are expected to believe that various layers of professionals within government don’t know this?

      It all seems very implausible.

    84. Robert Graham says:

      Question Why are RCS getting involved in putting out a statement about something that happened in the House of Commons 2 days ago , is their remit now of a political nature I assumed it was to assist victims of sexual assault or people under threat of assault .

      I am not clear how this original complaint came to light , was it from a alleged victim , was it the result of some kind of fishing trip in order to compile evidence to build a case ?

      The time lapse doesn’t make sense 3 possibly 4 years after a alleged incident all of a sudden ping and it’s all hands on deck for a full scale operation , this during the construction of a complaint system that’s not used anywhere in the western world and could only have one person as the intended target , as far as I know civil servants were either not included or even considered it was only First Ministers , and it’s not been used since ,this system has not been used in any other case because it was only intended to get Alex Salmond.

      The fly in the ointment was the jury not playing ball that fkd up the whole plan it wasn’t supposed to happen this way , Alex should have been in prison right now and people right at the top of the SNP Government were working night and day to make sure it did and even offering the police help

    85. John Cleary says:

      Roddy Macdonald says:
      18 March, 2021 at 6:47 pm
      Thanks for that, Cath. Well, it appears Ms JCB has dropped the FM’s CoS well and truly in it, in contravention of Para 6 anyway.

      6. In order to enable special advisers to work effectively, departments should allocate civil servants to provide support of a non-political nature. Special advisers are able to give direction to such civil servants in relation to their day-to-day work for them, and their views should be sought as an input to performance appraisals on the basis that these are written by other civil servants. However, special advisers should not be involved in the line management of civil servants or in matters affecting a civil servant’s career such as recruitment, promotion, reward and discipline, or have access to personnel files of civil servants.

      Hello Roddy,

      We are being lied to again.
      During the Blair regime three spads were given powers to instruct and direct civil servants. They were Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Sally Morgan.

      Only Queen Elizabeth can vest such powers.

      I’m pretty sure that Queen Elizabeth is once again interfering in matters of government, and that she has in fact vested such powers in Liz Lloyd. That, in my view, is the real reason for the paranoia about mentioning her name. It exposes Queen Elizabeth as once more, for the thousandth time, breaching her Coronation Oath.

      Stu, it looks as though this might be a team effort. Look at the spelling of “behaviour” in the statement.

      In January 2018 I was approached by Scottish Government HR regarding an investigation they were undertaking into a complaint about Alex Salmond’s behavior during his time as First Minister.

      I had been named as someone who experienced such behaviour in statements obtained during the course of HR’s investigation.”

    86. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      I have been terrified when going into burning buildings or diving into brutally ice cold sea water when people were on fire or drowning, or at a plane that has crashed “heavy” with a ruptured fuel tank spilling A1 jet fuel all round the passengers we were helping calmly but quickly to get out of harm’s way.

      Stuart, for one of the few times in life, I disagree with you. I am not terrified of the Crown Office as I am unlikely to live long enough for them to do their gerrymandered worst. When I meet my maker I want as few sins and bad baggage as possible. Nick and Wolfy seem destined to pay a hearty excess on their baggage.

      Whatever your belief system, most decent folk would worry about what the final, damnable verdict is on both breaking their Oaths by whoever sits in penultimate judgement on them. Please note: I do not use the word “alleged”.

      It is an unseemly thing, but just as Nicola Sturgeon and that dreadful Wolffe man seem to have their fingerprints in the vicinity of much that is so very wrong and as per your article with the deployment of Rape Crisis Scotland as their proxy human shield, we too have that genus of option: the taboo topic of death rather than rape being part of Nicola Sturgeon’s warped, sick game of Top Trumps.

      Meanwhile, the Faculty of Advocates DO have some honourable people in amongst their ranks. I know, I have seen them in action at close quarters. They are the ones who run towards the burning buildings I mention and not flee it in the manner that most of the Scottish political establishment have become accustomed at disgracing themselves.

      There are, of course, those people who become incontinent when required to show their true mettle. The Wokerati who have the urge or run away and let the baby drown. Preferring to save their own skin first.

      So Stuart, I am not an idiot as was tested for retardation when younger and have a decent IQ. Neither am I terrified.

      But I am hugely pi55ed off.

      Stuart Thornicus Campbell, my friend, there are four simple words that can and will disinfect the aroma of rodent infesting Bute House and the soon to be smelt evacuation of bowels to which you refer. To remedy this… No fundraising is required. A recorded delivery letter to…

      The Professional Standards Department, PO Box 2460, Police Scotland, Dalmarnock, Glasgow, G40 9BA.

      If the complaint is about the Chief Constable or DCC or any of the ACCs, then address the matter to…

      The Scottish Police Authority, 1 Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DZ.

      BEFORE DOING EITHER, PLEASE TAKE THE ADVICE OF STUART CAMPBELL AND BE TERRIFIED.

      If you genuinely care about the mess Scotland is in, as eloquently given in evidence under Oath by the Rt. Hon Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, Dr., Univ. (St Andrews)., Dr. Univ., (Glasgow)., MA Econ., Privy Council, then before you write to the Professional Standards you should read the Police Scotland website on “How To Make A Complaint”. Specifically the part where gerrymandering of complaints appears according to David Davis (under Parliamentary Privilege) to be legion (the Crown Office).

      Also, as a professional courtesy lodge a formal complaint with Police Scotland in the FIRST INSTANCE to at least given them a chance to investigate these grave matters.

      If the police fail to act, go ask a true Scottish Indy supporter about this, as he has picked up a bit of law in his own portrait as an AC12 officer. I served as a real police officer and can attest to Series 2 of Dr Jed Mercurio’s Line of Duty being uncannily close to real thing.

      Martin Compston is a genuine Pro-Indy person and is also VERY close to how a real polis would conduct themselves in the rubber heal department.

      No one, I repeat for the benefit of Sturgeon and Wolffe, no one is above the law.

      The Magic four words…

      MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

      When someone in the final furlong of their life is in the position that I have narrated and they have a head full of legal training, the Sturgeon and Wolffe lawyers can threaten, bully, malfease, pervert, suborn all they like. They may get away with this for a long time.

      But my friends as the wise Frederick Austerlitz and Virginia McMath used to say, and is is apposite to current First Minister Nicola the Rt Hon Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, B.Law (hons)., Dip Leg., MSP., and the Rt Hon Walter James Wolffe, B.Law (hons)., B.C.L., Dip. Leg., QC, Lord Advocate, this applies, here, now, from the hand of a dead man walking…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACCCmFKP80&t=0m7s

    87. Cath says:

      The fly in the ointment was the jury not playing ball that fkd up the whole plan it wasn’t supposed to happen this way

      So now the same people responsible want to rid the system of juries. No doubt they’ll manage to find some more anonymous accusers just as soon as the juries are gone so they can re-run the trial with the outcome they wanted.

    88. Menstruator says:

      I suppose we should brace for “I gave 8 hours of evidence, who wouldn’t make a few wee errors.”

    89. David R says:

      Seeing the acolytes of the committee’s findings is…interesting. Nikla leading us to the promised land of indy, not a cult though, nope, no way.

    90. Not for me to say says:

      But the worlds gone mad. Why would you do all this, unless you were an insane neo liberal fruit cake.
      Some one has been cutting her hair though.

    91. Carol Neill says:

      Terrified
      Idiot
      Furious
      Really quite scared
      Idiot mostly

    92. TheSNPLeftMe says:

      Is it true?

      Have the committee found she lied and misled Holyrood. I’m looking for solid confirmation before I pour another whisky!

    93. Cath says:

      Sturgeon’s inevitable response to the committee findings is that the committee is lying.

      “In response to news reports that first minister ‘misled’ the harassment committee, a spokesperson says: “The First Minister told the truth to the committee in eight hours of evidence, and stands by that evidence.”

      https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1372635840887803904

    94. Republicofscotland says:

      Media reporting that the Committee has said that Sturgeon lied, whether or not they go on to put it in their report that she knowingly, and willfully lied is another matter.

    95. Los says:

      “Ruby says:
      18 March, 2021 at 7:43 pm

      https://archive.is/IkxOA

      Sky News
      Sturgeon ‘misled parliament’ over role in Salmond investigation, committee finds”

      and now repeated on Channel Four news just now.

      If that’s the case, the BBC Panorama program due on BBC1 at 8pm on Sturgeon vs Salmond would make the BBC look a bit foolish if their program turned out to be a Hagiography of Sturgeon by one of her ex-School Mates who all pop up so often using very similar language to Support her on Twitter.

      Perhaps the BBC will now pull Panorama to avoid looking foolish?

    96. Vestas says:

      ….and still Craig Murray waits for a contempt of court verdict from Lady Dorian regarding the alphabet sisters.

      Is it 8 weeks and counting now?

      Enquiring minds wonder why that might be.

      The good Lady can’t possibly be THAT busy can she?

    97. Republicofscotland says:

      Just to say Rev, your past two threads have made for excellent, if not depressing reading. We’d be all but in the dark without your input.

    98. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Tommy Sheridan 6:21pm
      Ah well I hope you get into Holyrood. I hope George Galloway gets in as well.You have little in common. But you are strong characters. We need strong people in Holyrood. I wish you well.

    99. Confused says:

      the new scottish sex crimes courts will consist of –

      sandy brindley saying whether or not she likes the look of you

      – the appeals process will be staffed by approved radical feminists hand-picked from university gender studies departments

      https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/6827124/blackmailer-jailed-rape-extortion/

      “rules of consent” will be distributed to nightclubs, students unions and bars and can be downloaded as a 780page PDF from the rape crisis website

      – enjoy the satire before it is promoted to reality

    100. McHaggis69 says:

      Twitter.

      Where NS fanatics tell you Davis ‘lied’ when he [checks notes]… read out undisputed texts messages.

      I actually wonder if we are too fucking stupid to be an independent country.

    101. laukat says:

      Uh-oh!

      Do you think Andy Wightman might have got a call from his handler? https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1372636244929286153

    102. JSC says:

      Is there a line in the sand where a current (or future) legal system can overturn a lifetime anonymity?

      i.e. if the underlying crimes (in this case the ability to make false allegations without much challenge or subsequent accountability) were shown to have been enabled as a *direct result* of that anonymity, or that their severity outweighs the anonymity?

    103. mike cassidy says:

      Ruby 7.19

      It will be “Some Like It Hot” on a loop

    104. McHaggis69 says:

      Tannadice Boy says:
      18 March, 2021 at 7:57 pm
      @Tommy Sheridan 6:21pm
      Ah well I hope you get into Holyrood. I hope George Galloway gets in as well

      That last bit.
      Get in the sea with that pish.
      A racist old headbanger who shills any cause for a dollar. A ‘socialist’? right wing maniac who wears a fucking hat indoors.
      I genuinely would rather see the parliament dissolved than that wanker get a seat.

    105. Willie says:

      So, Harassment Committee will publish full report in coming days. Conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon misled committee and therefore parliament reached by majority vote.

      liar!

    106. Mel says:

      Have I got this right then.

      The author has – apparently – been approached to become complainer C together with A and B. But in the end – in her words – took no further part in the process.

      Except that this statement was sent revealing that, actually, she DID take part in the process, right to the trial.

      And Rape Crisis realised they had revealed this attempted at belittling Davis instead shows the statement was a complete lie.

      And so they tried to covercthis up by sending a second document. Which shows the document is a, complete lie and that they are firefighting without brains.

      I’m beginning to need drip feeding this stuff.

    107. Vestas says:

      @ laukat says:
      18 March, 2021 at 8:00 pm

      “Do you think Andy Wightman might have got a call from his handler?”

      If you mean future employer then aye probably 😉

    108. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      Has “The 3 monkeys” (WGD) website imploded yet?

    109. Republicofscotland says:

      Laukat.

      This from your link.

      “Tory David Davis has just got the UK Tory government to agree to extend parliamentary privilege to Holyrood so that MSPs can hear evidence the SNP’s John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon say MSPs shouldn’t hear.”

    110. Mark Boyle says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 18 March, 2021 at 6:00 pm
      “I am neither terrified or an idiot.”

      I’m afraid those are the only choices.”

      There’s also “beyond pissed off!”

      @Tannadice Boy says: “I only have 3 University degrees in 3 different disciplines so I am not an idiot.”

      Getting them in The Sims 4 doesn’t count.

    111. Captain Yossarian says:

      @McHaggis 69 – George Galloway; he may be a lot of things but he is not corrupt. The shit that sits on the SNP chairs at the moment are corrupt to the very core – the whole lot of them.

    112. Willie says:

      And so with the news emerging that Sturgeon misled the committee and therefore Parliament when can we expect the First Minister to stand down.

      Will she stand down tomorrow. She is a desperately and terminally wounded animal prolonging her existence.

    113. SilverDarling says:

      Re: the leak.

      Maybe Andy Wightman was just thinking out loud. God knows he is a ponderous creature. I don’t think we will see anything like a decisive statement from them, more a sigh and a wringing of hands. They will want Hamilton to do the dirty work.

    114. Tannadice Boy says:

      @McHaggis69 8:03pm
      You must be on the drink. There is no other explanation for your outburst. I have a family connection with George Galloway. He is no racist. Try tomorrow to bring to the debate a sensible contribution.

    115. Josef Ó Luain says:

      YA-FUCKING-HOO! I’ve just realised how vindictive it’s possible to be.

    116. disillusioned half Scot says:

      “Perhaps the BBC will now pull Panorama to avoid looking foolish?” it’s on now, but I’ll watch the football, thanks.

    117. Republicofscotland says:

      Watching the BBC’s Salmond vs Sturgeon RCS’s head Brindley wheeled out to defend Sturgeon’s position.

    118. Lee Floyd says:

      And we watch as Scotland goes down the toilet. How can Scots think they are ready for independence? The idea is insane, which, if the SNP are returned in the election, is what the rest of us will believe you all to be.

    119. Roddy Macdonald says:

      Am I alone in wondering WTF an author of crime fiction is doing as a Sturgeon spokeswoman on Panorama? Hang on, having just typed that, I realise how appropriate her spokeswoman is!

    120. Simon Rooke says:

      BBC News – Alex Salmond inquiry says Nicola Sturgeon misled committee
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56451170

      Whoops!

    121. Willie says:

      So David Davis has apparently got the U.K. government is extending parliamentary privilege to let MSP’s hear the evidence that John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon say should not be heard.

      No doubt we will have confirmation of this or otherwise in the near future but this may now be why the Harassment Committee has leaked its conclusion that they find Sturgeon guilty of misleading the committee and therefore Parliament.

      It’s difficult now not to think that Sturgeon is being sacrificed in an attempt to stop the slaughter of others like Swinney. The whole house of cards is collapsing it seems. And not a moment to soon. Sturgeon will go down in history as a vile individual no friend of Scotland.

    122. holymacmoses says:

      Panorama and I’m appalled that BBC is being allowed yet again to completely ignore the fact that Alex Salmond was acquitted of ALL charges INCLUDING the two women who everyone keeps saying were ‘let down’. The women had their day in court and the jury dismissed all charges against Mr Salmond. No-one was let down. Mr Salmond is being persecuted.

    123. Socrates MacSporran says:

      If Sturgeon doesn’t resign after this first ver5dict against her, she will probably face calls for her resignation after Hamilton reports.

      If she still refuses to resign, and, by some miracle, she is still FM after the Holyrood election – then that is one more reason for Westminster to step in, shut down Holyrood and restore direct rule.

      She will not stop Independence, but, she can stall it for about a decade.

      She has to go.

    124. Republicofscotland says:

      The BBC scraping the bottom of war criminal barrel by giving Sturgeon’s close buddy Alistair Campbell a slot on the programme.

    125. dropthevipers says:

      And yet, and yet…Unless and until the smoking gun with Sturgeon’s fingerprints on it is produced she will just brazen it out. “Honest mistake, think of the poor wimmun, let the public decide..etc”

    126. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Mark Boyle 8:07 pm
      When you life has been more successful than mine you will be entitled to come back at me. Otherwise cheerio

    127. Edward MacD says:

      Murkier than the filthy radioactive waters of the Firth of Forth. Still, what shall arise from the ashes. Scotland has to remain steadfast in its own belief that we can end these acts of charlatans, these pretenders. We have to end our trust in careerists and look for a new form of government completely… one not based on politic.

    128. TheSNPLeftMe says:

      People praising George Galloway! Really

    129. John Martini says:

      I see Nicoliar is on the Biased Brodcasting Corporation.

    130. President Xiden says:

      It is being reported that the Holyrood committee have concluded that a certain first minister misled them in her evidence.

    131. laukat says:

      Well Panorama was clearly a Unionist hatchet job. Heavy on insuniation that Salmond is guilty even though found not guilty but equally pointing to the clear evidence that Sturgeon lied. Andrew Neil quick to say that the SNP not getting a majority means no indyref.

      The only interesting part was that the programme knew that the committee was voting tonight on if Sturgeon mislead parliament so it would appear as though it was co-oridnated for maximum effect.

    132. Hatuey says:

      “Alex Salmond inquiry says Nicola Sturgeon misled committee”
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56451170

    133. Republicofscotland says:

      “TheSNPLeftMe says:
      18 March, 2021 at 8:34 pm
      People praising George Galloway! Really”

      Indeed, Galloway is the epitome of anti- Scottish independence, and he should be shunned at every turn.

    134. John Martini says:

      Sacrificing your people and their cause for your own ends can be more harmful than heroin. I hope the burny fire blisters your ass.

      And you could have it all
      My empire of dirt
      I will let you down
      I will make you hurt

    135. Clavie Cheil says:

      The Committee it seems by 5-4 think that Sturgeon lied or misled the Committee and the Parly and has thus broken the Ministerial Code. However I think Sturgeon survives for three reasons.

      1.Douglas Red Card Ross is useless.

      2. The sycophantic and rabid Sturgeon Cult in the SNP who will follow her to the end.

      3. The Brit Establishment will have her back as she is now a Liability to the SNP in the forthcoming elections and worse yet she is a liability to the Indy cause.

      But hey nothing to see here move along folks. AS will be getting a shit pile of smears on other forums. It wont take rocket science to figure that out though and it has started already.

    136. oneliner says:

      Funny, I can’t see the strings in the leader pic.

    137. Ross Kilbride says:

      I know there are some thick Bastards on here who question why I am campaigning for Sturgeon to lose her seat in Glasgow Southside.

      But the more intelligent amongst us understand why.

      If Sturgeon had any honour left, she would resign and save me the job of fighting to get her out of Scottish Politics for good.

      Nasty little woman with a lot of “neck”.

      Celebrations could be organised for George Sq, similar to the death of Thatcher, if she resigns.

    138. AndyH says:

      To all the Yoon kneelers coming here for a gloat.

      Get it right fucking up yez!

      It’s better to get this shite cleared oot the pipes now before the foundations get put down.

      The youngsters all want independence. It’s just a matter of time and this shit show just gives us the chance to do it properly.

      Soar Alba!

    139. true scot says:

      At some point somebody has to hit that 2 metre exhaust port and blow up the deathstar..

    140. Onlooker says:

      Hmmm, this is interesting. How would Sky News know this?

      “A Scottish parliamentary committee has concluded that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament.

      Sky News understands that Holyrood’s harassment committee has reached the conclusion by a majority vote ahead of the publication of its final report.”

      https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sturgeon-misled-parliament-over-role-152700842.html

    141. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      President Xiden & Hautey

      No shit sherlock’s. I must you’re rapid eh!

    142. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      Onlooker ffs

      We ken

    143. Vestas says:

      When the BBC protects you then you’re part of the British state or of value to it. Nothing else.

      Dead dug site readers need to get a clue…..

    144. Tommo says:

      IF-and only if-the report of the findings of this laughable committee’s findings are correct-and IF it doesn’t come down to ‘och the puir wee thing a’ those questions and such a long day for her wad ye no mak’ a wee mistake or twa yersel’ etc etc then it will be thanks to;
      Alex Salmond-though he could scarcely remain silent
      The Moderator of this site and
      The Spectator-
      all of whom have displayed a forensic intelligence and the ability to dissect this can of worms and made the committee majority fear simply to flannel
      Well done all say I

    145. Mac says:

      So Andy Wightman was part of the 5 v 4?

      I think arithmetically he had to be as none of the 4 SNP MSP would have jumped ship but really!? lol.

    146. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      Ross Kilbride.

      No one gives a fuck what you think ya clown.

    147. Ross Kilbride says:

      Not that I am a fan, but the NINE on to get BBC might be worth a wee look

    148. Ross Kilbride says:

      AYRSHIRE NOB

      Another Sturgeon Ultra Flat Earther.

      You still trying to invent the wheel Mr Dick Heed???

    149. Cath says:

      Well Panorama was clearly a Unionist hatchet job. Heavy on insuniation that Salmond is guilty even though found not guilty but equally pointing to the clear evidence that Sturgeon lied

      It’s always been clear that’s what they want. To go into May with Salmond still being smeared as Scotland’s Harvey Weinstein and Nicola destroyed for lying, but with the insinuation it was lying to cover up for him. There is no way any of the unionists – not the committee, the media, the politicians – are ever going to report the truth of the stitch up. That’s why Sturgeon can’t have acted alone: they have covered up for her until the point when they can extract maximum damage to both. What’s so infuriating is that those in the SNP and supposed independence supporters who have been covering for her can’t see that.

      She had so many times when she could have stepped back from all this – many of them gifted by Salmond, from the mediation suggestion and judicial review, right through to his committee evidence. She could have put the record straight, or resigned with dignity over covid or a dry and technical breach of the ministerial code and allowed someone else to take over and the SNP to re-build before May. That she’s dragged it out for so long, to this point, and with this much damage done is just heartbreaking.

    150. robertknight says:

      We’re through the looking glass here people – black is white, and white is black.

      Sturgeon’s enablers need to form a new Twitter group…

      #BlindforIndy

      I’m now pissed off to the extent I’m seriously considering holding my nose and voting Tory just to keep these b*stards out. Never, ever, ever thought it’d get that bad – but it has.

      It’s not about Indy any more – it’s gone way, way beyond that.

      These people need jailed, and jailed for a long time.

    151. Lothianlad says:

      Sturgeon will be remembered in the same way james stuart of mentieth is remembered.

    152. Ross Kilbride says:

      AYRSHIRE NOB

      “Ma Nikla has never lied tae anybody in her life”.

    153. cynicalHighlander says:

      Who does Wightman give his bit of spine back to?

    154. Ross Kilbride says:

      Sturgeon,,,

      The wicked witch of Dreghorn.

      In the seventeenth century she would have been burnt at the stake.

    155. John Martini says:

      Et Tu McQanon..

    156. Daisy Walker says:

      Wow, this – ‘Ms Sturgeon’s spokesman insisted that the first minister told the truth during her eight-hour evidence session earlier this month.

      He added: “It is clear from past public statements that opposition members of this committee had prejudged the first minister at the outset of the inquiry and before hearing a word of her evidence.

      “So this partisan and selective briefing – before the committee has actually published its final report – is hardly surprising.” ‘

      So the First Minister, in addition to showing contempt of court verdicts and the Juries who decide them, is now showing the same contempt for Government Inquiries that do not go her way.

      The sheer level of arrogance and inflexibility in this approach.

      Not a stateswoman or a leader, not by a long chalk. I don’t think this attitude will endear her to high profile prestige roles in the near future.

    157. John Martini says:

      Sorry it was too tempting..

      Ding-dong, the witch is dead! Which old witch? The wicked witch
      Ding-dong, the wicked witch is dead
      Wake up, you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed
      Wake up, the wicked witch is dead!

    158. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Lee Floyd says:
      18 March, 2021 at 8:20 pm

      And we watch as Scotland goes down the toilet. How can Scots think they are ready for independence? The idea is insane, which, if the SNP are returned in the election, is what the rest of us will believe you all to be.

      Dear Lee – one word for you – BORIS. Now fuck off.

    159. Al says:

      Does this mean Nicola qualifes for a urinal in the Lismore pub ?
      https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/scotland-dont-f-around-picture-14236949

    160. Robert Graham says:

      A point to Remember this was filmed before the latest batch of information has been dragged out of the Crown office , also the way it’s been edited it is intended to give the impression of a unbiased investigative report , well if that was the idea it’s questionable whether a School friend of Nicola Sturgeon was involved in the production and is it just a coincidence, Aye Right.

      It would be interesting to learn if the committee members interviewed and their thoughts on the way they have been portrayed in this program clever editing can produce a intended result .

      Has anyone learned anything new ? . What I did notice was the lack of focus on the obstruction by Nicola Sturgeons government throughout the whole Pantomime the committee has been hampered by the Nicola Sturgeon government , she said no obstacles would be placed in the way of the committee getting to the truth but her actions and her Governments actions have and are doing the exact polar opposite of what she promised .

      It might be interesting and possibly revealing what the general public makes of this program I mean the people who haven’t been following it closely , I am left with the impression that the program skirted round the edges with the intention of simplifying the subject for people who haven’t been paying attention , this quite astonishing episode in Scottish political history has to be looked at closely , if it was a move or a drama series it would be spread over several episodes once you start to get a grip it starts to become clear , and it’s not a pretty sight for Nicola Sturgeon who I believe is trapped in a real problem of her own making the more she tries to save herself the more people are dragged into the spotlight I wonder if one of them will soon break cover to save themselves

    161. Southernbystander says:

      BBC news just reported Fabiani committee 5-4 saying NS misled the committee

    162. Jack Murphy says:

      The ordinary hard working solicitors in the High Streets of our cities and towns must be mortified and deeply ill at ease at what’s happening at the Top of their profession in Scotland.

    163. Southernbystander says:

      OK, so I am behind the loop!

    164. JSC says:

      I see Liz Lloyd tweeted the Sturgeon bs response tonight (although with replies switched off for some reason/s), and this was what Humza then retweeted. It’s all very cosy when the wagons circle.

    165. 100%Yes says:

      Sturgeon looked rattled on tv, nice one she deserves all she gets, here hoping she resigns so our country can move on without her gold Fucking standard and I can go back to voting for the SNP.

    166. President Xiden says:

      Joffrey should haven declared her friendship with Sturgeon at the start of this mockumentary.

    167. Al says:

      100%Yes says:
      Resign is not good enough, an example needs to be set for the future. Fail the Scottish people and get VSF.

    168. Alex says:

      She is damaged goods. But she doesn’t have the class, integrity, or dignity to resign before she does anymore damage.

    169. 100%Yes says:

      She’ll be pleading her innocence til the day she dies that’s how conceited she is. I think its good news for Scotland and her people this woman who’s been found to be a lair would have kept lying about Independence until she destroyed the SNP and our country.

    170. K Campbell says:

      @holymacmoses says:
      18 March, 2021 at 8:24 pm
      Panorama and I’m appalled that BBC is being allowed yet again to completely ignore the fact that Alex Salmond was acquitted of ALL charges INCLUDING the two women who everyone keeps saying were ‘let down’. The women had their day in court and the jury dismissed all charges against Mr Salmond. No-one was let down. Mr Salmond is being persecuted.

      I agree, and on top of that I woudl also like to point out that the rhetoric spilling out of NS and indeed RoothD about the “poor wummin were let down” with the original inquiry is utter bollocks.
      The truth of the matter is that the “poor wummin” were let down, (bare with me), LET DOWN BY NS who has turned them into Victims. They are not Victims of Alex, in fact they are Victims of NS.She and her coven used these women to their own ends, BULLIED and cajoled them into giving statements, and also in some cases, forwarded their concerns to the police and others WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!
      Had a husband treated a wife in this way in Scotland, husband would have been serving time in the nick for domestic abuse under the coercion and manipulations laws.
      Ergo, NS has abused these wimmin and as such they are victims only of her

    171. Meg merrilees says:

      Apologies if this has already been pointed out but

      The supposedly anonymous person making the statement, who has been identified as ‘one of the AS complainers’ finishes her ‘denial’ statement by saying:-
      “I conveyed my decision to HR and had NO FURTHER PART in the process”

      How could she be one of the AS complainers if she truly had NO FURTHER PART in the process.

      Of course, we don’t actually know what her decision was – it is implied that her decision was to decline to co-operate, but since by doing so, she wasn’t going to impede any ongoing investigations, perhaps she said,
      ‘oh, that’s alright then, just ignore everything I’ve just said and go ahead as planned.’…..

      I conveyed my decision to HR and had NO further part in the process. then has a whole new meaning.

      What a farce, and how ridiculous NS was this afternoon, trotting out the old chestnut about Ruth heading off to the House of Lords, more than once, but obviously evading answering the questions. She is living in fairyland now!

    172. Mac says:

      Wait… so the Panorama puff piece / hatchet job got aired today? at roughly the same time this news was released to the media about the Inquiry’s findings?

      That would be a remarkable co-incidence if so.

    173. Robert says:

      There’s a lot of use made of the phrase: “the women were let down” Might be worth podering what “not let down” would have looked like. Is there an expectation that even a robust HR process coyuld or should deliver a head on a plate? That’s not what HR processes are for – they’re not there to punish people.

    174. Meg merrilees says:

      Sky News understands that Holyrood’s harassment committee has reached the conclusion by a majority vote ahead of the publication of its final report.

      Members have decided that Ms Sturgeon misled the committee itself and, as such, misled parliament and potentially breached the ministerial code of conduct.

      It will significantly increase pressure on Ms Sturgeon to step down. Her opponents have repeatedly levelled the accusation that, in misleading parliament, she breached the ministerial code of conduct.

      It dictates that any minister found to knowingly be in breach should offer their resignation.

      Sky News understands that the word “knowingly” was not included in the text agreed by the committee.

      Its members decided by a majority that it was misled by evidence submitted to them by the first minister.

    175. Pixywine says:

      There’s a stane missin fae a dyke in Dreghorn.

    176. Mist001 says:

      She’s not out the door yet. The key word to her survival is ‘knowingly’. She can and probably will claim that the evidence that she submitted to the enquiry was entirely truthful as far as she was aware and had no knowledge of information which has subsequently become available to the committee, therefore she didn’t knowingly mislead the enquiry.

      I’ve said time and again that she’s bulletproof and going nowhere BUT I’d be JUBILANT to be proved wrong!

    177. JGedd says:

      laukat@ 8.37pm

      ‘Well Panorama was clearly a Unionist hatchet job. Heavy on insuniation that Salmond is guilty even though found not guilty but equally pointing to the clear evidence that Sturgeon lied.’

      Yes, it has been obvious that those few Unionists, like Neil, who have commented on this affair, would use this approach. They have been salivating to get Sturgeon but they did not want in any way to seem to exonerate Salmond.

      They want to damage both of them and thus destroy the independence movement by using as proof that the SNP is incapable of honest governance and are guilty of abuse of power. They don’t want Salmond’s reputation to be salvaged. Hence the reason why they do not acknowledge that this whole farrago of lies and deceit and corruption has only been brought into the light by the work of independence supporters such as Stuart Campbell, Craig Murray, Gordon Dangerfield etc. Their forensic analysis of this whole sordid business will never be given recognition by the Unionist press and media.

      They cannot allow that it was a determined few from within the independence movement who kept on fastidiously investigating in order to hold the SG to account while the so-called mainstream media looked the other way. In the fullness of time, but carefully managed by the Unionist elite, the wrongdoing of the SG will be revealed to the public but the narrative will be to wreck independence without crediting anyone from within the indy movement for keeping to the truth.

      Due to Sturgeon and Co., this will be held to illustrate how corrupt and tawdry an independent Scotland would be. They want this affair to end the independence cause. In no way could they permit Salmond to become a leader again.

      I think Alex Salmond knows this. I was taken aback at the time that someone I thought of as wily, expressed himself surprised, after the 2014 referendum, that the BBC was so blatantly prejudiced. I think he knows better now.

    178. John Cleary says:

      Rev Stu,

      Another thought. The parallels with the Blair regime come more and more profound.

      Do you recall the Dodgy Dossier?
      That document issued in the name of the United Kingdom on the single authority of one Alastair Campbell, and nobody else?

      That document was also undermined by the metadata in Microsoft Word. It was pòssible to follow the trail of edits and the plagiarised sources.

      All down to Alastair Campbell, using “special powers”, and nothing to do with Prime Minister Blair.

      What did Mark Twain opine?

      “History never repeats; but it does rhyme”

    179. Kev says:

      I’ve not read all the comments so apologies if it’s been covered but the main focus seems to have been the misuse of funds. Yes that is important no question.

      To me noone seems concerned that sturgeon/Scottish government/SNP seem to have no issues using the full power of the state against people they dislike. The rangers administrators, Alex salmond, who’s next?

      Then they are using government resources to cover it up. That to me is the scariest part

    180. McDuff says:

      Is there any way at all that Sturgeon and the SG can be brought to task by the law, because it seems this woman by her lies, deceit, vindictiveness and insane polices along with her inner circle are intent on driving this country into a brick wall. There must be a way to stop this.

    181. JimuckMac says:

      Mia says,

      “mmm. This is beginning to look more and more like a very carefully thought out and complex plan to keep Mr Salmond busy and out of politics for a good number of years.“

      Me says,

      It looks more like they are making it up as they go along.

    182. Saffron Robe says:

      Excellent work Stuart, relentlessly driving a stake through the heart of corruption.

      I agree with others, the dominoes must surely start to fall now, and not a moment too soon.

      A nation without justice is a nation without honour.

    183. Mr Bonobo says:

      If I hear ‘8 hours of evidence’ one more time tonight, I will scream.

    184. steelewires says:

      Stuart, You’d be a great ferret, getting deep into the rathole and chasing out the rats! Thanks!

    185. Kcor says:

      “None of these questions will ever be answered, of course.”

      Sadly, we don’t have a single friend outside Scotland’s juridiction who could reveal everything.

      Then the perpetrators of the criminal conspiracy to send an innocent Alex Salmond would find themselves where they belong – in jail.

      Scotland has ZERO international friends when it badly needs them.

    186. Colin Alexander says:

      Sturgeon said a referendum must be “legal and legitimate”.

      Sturgeon’s SNP Scot Govt continued to defend the unlawful application of the retrospective complaint process against Alex Salmond, even AFTER their own legal counsel advised them the Court of Session case was indefensible.

      How much more unlawful and illegal conduct has occurred since then?

      It seems legality only matters when it can be used as an excuse to deny democracy to the people of Scotland.

      ———————————————————–

      Yet, AFI and ISP both say people should vote SNP on the constituency. That reflects badly on them.

      I cannot agree with that. Backing the corrupt SNP reflects very badly on the ISP and AFI.

    187. Kcor says:

      TOMMY SHERIDAN says,

      “This detailed contribution and Gordon Dangerfield’s https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/03/18/an-urgent-question/ are truly frightening as they illustrate just how willing and brazenly those in positions of power and influence at the very summit of the Scottish Government are prepared to both lie and encourage others to do so on their behalf.”

      Those are the very people you are endorsing with your constituency vote for the SNP mantra, Tommy.

      From the two choices, are you terrified or an idiot?

    188. James M says:

      Many thanks to Mia (6.51) for a superb further analysis of this horrifying state of affairs, complementing Rev Campbell’s extraordinary powers.

    189. Kcor says:

      Tannadice Boy says,

      “Stu
      I am neither terrified or an idiot.

      Tannadice Boy says,

      “I hope George Galloway gets in as well.”

      IMHO, you fit in very well with Rev. Stuart Campbell’s second option.

    190. Kcor says:

      Mel says,

      “Have I got this right then.

      The author has – apparently – been approached to become complainer C together with A and B. But in the end – in her words – took no further part in the process.

      Except that this statement was sent revealing that, actually, she DID take part in the process, right to the trial.”

      I can’t find any flaw in your logic, so I second that.

      The complainer who wrote that said she wan’t a complainer. Yes, they take us all for complete fools.

      “Rape Crisis Scotland – and more specifically its Press and Campaigns Officer Brenna Jessie, in whose name the email went out – had just identified the complainer to everyone it had sent the email to.”

      She should be sacked immediately and tried for both revealing the name and for lying.

    191. Kcor says:

      Tannadice Boy says,

      “I have a family connection with George Galloway.”

      Are you in favour of independence? George Galloway is firmly against.

      That makes him no different from other unionists, but what exactly are the qualities you see in him which would benefit the people of Scotland?

    192. Kcor says:

      Ross Kilbride says,

      “Celebrations could be organised for George Sq, similar to the death of Thatcher, if she resigns.”

      Sorry, no celebrations until she has been jailed for a long time.

    193. Kcor says:

      McDuff says,

      “Is there any way at all that Sturgeon and the SG can be brought to task by the law”

      She has the law in her pocket, via the corrupt lying criminal Lord Advocate of Scotland.

      They can only be brought to task by a very strong court of public opinion.

    194. A Kilted Sausage says:

      Daisy Walker says:
      18 March, 2021 at 5:58 pm
      ..For this reason she is not in a position to issue a blanket defence of LL – she is not the master of all the facts – and should not have been afforded this platform by a registered Charity, seeking in effect to interfere in a Political matter.

      Daisy, very well said, on all points!

    195. Meg merrilees says:

      Kcor and Mel @11.56

      I presume you meant to write:

      The author has-apparently- been approached to become complainer C/D/E/F/G or H.
      As we don’t know what one of the Alpha betties she actually was or wasn’t, as she insists she took ‘no further action’.

    196. Mia says:

      “It looks more like they are making it up as they go along”

      Yes and no. That they are desperately firefighting, there is no doubt about. But it seems to me that in their rushed attempts to put lids on the unplanned things that are popping up, they are starting to take the lids off what they had planned.

      I think the possibility that the Civil Service HR might have been conducting a fishing expedition already as early as February 2018 is very serious indeed and points to the possibility that already at that point they were planning for a criminal trial, particularly if there was some kind of coordination with the fishing expedition that was taking place in the SNP itself.

      That some of those potential complainants might have been told that they needed to put their complaints or the case would fall through, indeed points at witnesses being pressurised. But it also points to something equally serious, which is the possibility that already at that time they were building their Moorove plan and they knew the whole thing would not stand a chance in hell unless they manage to get on board enough complainants. If this could be proven, it would suggest the potential existence already at that point in time of a strategy whose scope transcended the complaints procedure itself. In other words, it would be suggestive of previous planning and premeditation. If this is proven, it could become, in my personal view, one of the biggest clues yet to demonstrate the existence of a deliberate and planned conspiracy against Mr Salmond, who, at that point in time, had not been even informed yet of the complaints.

      Find the missing link that points to a coordination between the potential fishing expedition that took place via the SNP and the potential fishing expedition seemingly conducted via the Civil service and finding proof that the complainants were being told that without their complaint the case would fall through because the case was build in terms of quantity of complaints (Moorove), and you might be in business.

      There is another thread that has become undone. The submission to the parliamentary enquiry by the police establishes a timeline of contact between the Sgov and the police with regards to the complaints procedure. The first date that is indicated in that timeline is 5 December 2017.

      We have now learned that Judith Mackinnon sent an email to Nicky Page on the 23 November 2017, allegedly unintentionally, incidentally just one day after Nicola Sturgeon wrote to Evans giving her the green light to proceed with former ministers, and 2 days after the last meeting of Sommers with Mrs A. According to the submissions to the inqury, Ms A made “a disclosure” to Sommers on the 20th November 2017.

      So:
      1. Why wasn’t this communication with Nicky Page reported in the statement from the police released to the inquiry? Did Ms Page not inform her superiors of the email so nobody but her knew about it or it was decided not to include it because it was identified as a mistake?
      2. Was that because the communication of Judith Mackinnon and Nicky Page at that point may have not been merely on a professional capacity, but Mackinnon was spooked about something and was just seeking reassurance from somebody external about the soundness of the procedure and to have a second opinion about what she was about to embark on?
      3. Was Mackinnon instructed to include Nicky Page in that email by some other civil servant/gov person? Surely if including this person in the email was a mistake, it must have been spotted by the other people who received the email that addressee should not be there. I normally look at who an email I receive has been sent to unless of course it is in the BCC. This is of course all speculation, but using the Bcc option would be the route you would expect Ms Mackinnon would have taken if she was just looking quietly for an external opinion and did not want anybody else to know she was having doubts about the process.

      If including this person in the email was a mistake, was there a corrective email afterwards apologising to Ms Page for sending her information they shouldn’t and asking her to delete it?

      Was a report about a a potential breach of information security completed to account for the fact that potentially sensitive information at the time had been leaked to a third party? If yes, where is it?

      4. Ms Mackinnon had joined the Uk gov civil service in July 2017 if I am not mistaken. She was using at the time the UK civil service email account. Usually, in my experience, when you are writing an email address for first time, systems do not simply bring random names and addresses of people from outwith the organisation unless they are already in the system as contacts or you have already written to them in the past from that email account at least once or they emailed you.

      If we are to believe this name was put by mistake by the system while trying to write to a different “Nicky”, what was the reason for Ms Page’s email to be already in Ms Mackinnon email system? Was she one of her contacts? Were they already working together in some other matter and that is the reason why her email address was registered in the system?

      To get to the bottom of this, and to verify just how credible the “unintentional” bit of sending this email to Ms Page was, I think it would be required to find out what kind of communications, if any at all, Ms Mackinnon and everybody else in the group of people involved with the complaints procedure had had with Ms Page at the time.

      It would be of course very interesting to know why this email was not included in the timeline of events reported by the police in their statement to the inquiry.

    197. Lorna Campbell says:

      “… So who or what changed their mind at a later date?

      “She offered to convey my concerns and what I wanted to happen to an appropriate senior civil servant, who was the most appropriate person to discuss the issue with. I agreed to this course of action. This was not “interfering” but acting in line with my wishes.”… ”

      This is where it gets really sticky, because the complaints had been made at an earlier juncture and had already been dealt with, assuming that these were the two complaints for which Mr Salmond apologized, and the women went on working with him. This would be like re-opening a case after the verdict has been reached (is this what is actually happening, on the sly?) because you want to get the person who walked, by hook or by crook.

      It would appear that the two women, or, at least, the one you mention and who has made the recent statement, would not have revitalized the complaint under their own steam. This is what I had assumed all along: basically, it was odd that the women would raise these issues again without some reason to do so, even if they had felt that they had not been dealt with adequately at the time. They went on working for and with Mr Salmond, having been offered alternative situations at the same status and salary.

      It now appears that they were approached and encouraged to breathe new life into the complaints, even though, as this woman states, she did not wish to take the matter any further than an in-house investigation and disciplinary procedure. That procedure was not even up and running at the time, so it looks as if the complaints made previously and already dealt with, had been revitalized precisely to breathe life into the procedure, working backwards, or, in other words, fitting the case around what appeared to be old evidence which had been dealt with in the past, retrospectively.

      In those women’s shoes, I’d be contemplating throwing off the cloak of anonymity and allowing access to personal data to put an end to this long, drawn-out torture and the tit-for-tat sniping that is going on.

      As for the Rape Crisis Centre, this is becoming oppressive. Just what locus does it have in this? It is a government-funded organization that has opened its door to a male-bodied person as a counsellor and boss, against its own rules. What is wrong with these people? Are they so devoid of sense that they cannot see how they are tainting every piece of evidence, for or against, by their behaviour, that their own behaviour is at the very least questionable? They are acting ultra vires – well beyond the scope of their remit. All of them. This has to stop before the whole edifice falls and gives Westminster the very excuse it needs to step in and take over, as it did in NI, suspending Stormont. Only, it is doubtful whether Holyrood would ever re-open.

    198. StuartM says:

      @ Lorna Campbell

      Where do you get your information that there were 2 complainants that had previously made a complaint against Salmond and AS had apologised to them? AFAIK the only complaint made previously was by Woman K whose complaint was the “sleepy cuddle” and for which Alex had already apologised.

      According to Craig Murray quoting Dana Garavelli
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/i-have-a-plan-so-that-we-can-remain-anonymous-but-have-maximum-effect/

      the other woman was Woman F who had made the unlikely claim that Alex had grabbed her bum during a photoshoot on the ramparts of Stirling Castle in front of a crowd of onlookers and a photographer. Given that the participants were being photographed individually with Alex, 2 defence witnesses contradicted Woman F’s account and neither the photographs nor the photographer were produced by the prosecution we can safely conclude Woman F’s complaint was bogus.

      Lorna, it would be helpful if you can quote your source for the other woman who Alex supposedly apologised to. Which of the Alphabet Sisters was she?

    199. JonBoy says:

      Let’s summarise where we have got to now the report is out. Nicola cleared? Well, not quite. For the following reasons.

      The first thing in setting up any enquiry, make sure you know what the outcome will be before you do. Which is precisely what Nicola did. And if you restrict the scope of the enquiry, which she did, and don’t give it the information they ask for, which is also the case, you control what the outcomes will be.
      Then there is the Side note published by report author alongside says: “It is therefore impossible to give an accurate description of some of the relevant events dealt with in the report while at the same time complying with the court orders. I am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which I believe it would be in the public interest to publish.” So court orders, brought in by the SNP government, are stopping the whole truth coming out.
      The author also says: “I have reluctantly accepted that a redacted report should be published….. I have had no responsibility for deciding what to redact.” And to make matters worse, even that which will come out will be redacted by the person who was being investigated.

    200. Anna says:

      JonBoy I agree

      Ithe process of investigation was criminal.. This can only backfire. Nicola is very short sighted.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top